ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: Unfair Business Practices Complaint AvailableBRISTOL-MYERS: $125 Million Settlement Gets Court's Final OkayBRISTOL-MYERS: July 2010 Hearing Set for Settlement ApprovalBRISTOL-MYERS: Motion to Dismiss Two Suits Still Pending in OhioCKE RESTAURANTS: Being Sold for Inadequate Price, Suit Claims

A copy of the Complaint in Feller and Freed v. Anthem Blue Cross, Case No. 56-2010-00368587-CU-BT-SIM (Calif. Super. Ct. Ventura Cty.), seeking unspecified restitution for the plaintiffs and a court order barring future alleged violations of the state health and safety code, is available at:

BRISTOL-MYERS: $125 Million Settlement Gets Court's Final Okay--------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District for the Southern District of New York gave its final approval to the $125 million settlement in the putative class action complaint captioned In Re Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-05867, according to the company's Feb. 19, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In June and July 2007, two putative class action complaints, Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief Assoc. v. Bristol-Myers SquibbCo., et al. (07 CV 5867) and Jean Lai v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, et al., were filed in the U.S. District for the Southern District of New York against the company, the company's former Chief Executive Officer, Peter Dolan and former Chief Financial Officer, Andrew Bonfield.

The complaints allege violations of securities laws for allegedly failing to disclose material information relating to efforts to settle the PLAVIX* patent infringement litigation with Apotex.

On Sept. 20, 2007, the Court dismissed the Lai case without prejudice, changed the caption of the case to In re Bristol-Myers Squibb, Co. Securities Litigation, and appointed Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board as lead plaintiff.

On Oct. 15, 2007, Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board filed an amended complaint making similar allegations as the earlier filed complaints, naming an additional former officer but no longer naming Andrew Bonfield as a defendant.

By decision dated August 20, 2008, the federal district court denied defendants' motions to dismiss.

In May 2009, the parties reached a settlement in principle to resolve this litigation for payment of $125 million.

In August 2009, the District Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement.

In December 2009, the District Court granted final approval of a settlement between the parties for payment of $125 million, which concluded the matter.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company -- http://www.bms.com/-- is engaged in the discovery, development, licensing, manufacturing,marketing, distribution and sale of pharmaceutical and nutritional products. The company had two segments:Pharmaceuticals and Nutritionals. The Pharmaceuticals segment is made up of the global pharmaceutical and international consumer medicines business. The Nutritionals segment consists of Mead Johnson Nutritionals (Mead Johnson), primarily an infant formula and children's nutritionals business.

BRISTOL-MYERS: July 2010 Hearing Set for Settlement Approval------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has scheduled a July 2010 hearing to consider final approval of the proposed settlement in a consolidated suit against Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., according to the company's Feb. 19, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The company, together with a number of other pharmaceutical manufacturers, has been a defendant in a number of private classactions as well as suits brought by the attorneys general of various states.

In these actions, plaintiffs allege that defendants caused the Average Wholesale Prices (AWPs) of their products to be inflated, thereby injuring government programs, entities and persons who reimbursed prescription drugs based on AWPs. The company remains a defendant in four state attorneys general suits pending in state courts around the country.

One set of class actions, together with a suit by the Arizona attorney general, were consolidated in the U.S. District Courtfor the District of Massachusetts (AWP MDL).

In August 2009, the District Court granted preliminary approval of a proposed settlement of the AWP MDL plaintiffs' claimsagainst the company for $19 million, plus half the costs of class notice up to a maximum payment of $1 million.

A final approval hearing is currently scheduled to occur in July 2010.

Additionally, in August 2009, the Company settled the AWP lawsuit filed by the state of Arizona for an amount that is not material to the Company.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company -- http://www.bms.com/-- is engaged in the discovery, development, licensing, manufacturing,marketing, distribution and sale of pharmaceutical and nutritional products. The company had two segments:Pharmaceuticals and Nutritionals. The Pharmaceuticals segment is made up of the global pharmaceutical and international consumer medicines business. The Nutritionals segment consists of Mead Johnson Nutritionals (Mead Johnson), primarily an infant formula and children's nutritionals business.

BRISTOL-MYERS: Motion to Dismiss Two Suits Still Pending in Ohio----------------------------------------------------------------Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.'s motion to dismiss two putative class actions remains pending in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, according to the company's Feb. 19, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Eighteen lawsuits comprised of both individual suits and purported class actions have been filed against the company in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, by various plaintiffs, including pharmacy chains (individually and as assignees, in whole or in part, of certain wholesalers), various health and welfare benefit plans/funds and individual residents of various states.

These lawsuits allege, among other things, that the purported settlement with Apotex of the patent infringement litigation violated the Sherman Act and related laws. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, permanent injunctive relief barring the Apotex settlement and/or monetary damages.

The putative class actions filed on behalf of direct purchasers have been consolidated under the caption In re: Plavix Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, and the putative class actions filed on behalf of indirect purchasers have been consolidated under the caption In re: Plavix Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company -- http://www.bms.com/-- is engaged in the discovery, development, licensing, manufacturing,marketing, distribution and sale of pharmaceutical and nutritional products. The company had two segments:Pharmaceuticals and Nutritionals. The Pharmaceuticals segment is made up of the global pharmaceutical and international consumer medicines business. The Nutritionals segment consists of Mead Johnson Nutritionals (Mead Johnson), primarily an infant formula and children's nutritionals business.

CKE RESTAURANTS: Being Sold for Inadequate Price, Suit Claims-------------------------------------------------------------Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say CKE Restaurants (which owns and licenses Carl's Jr. and Hardee's) is selling itself too cheaply to Thomas H. Lee Partners, for $928 million or $11.05 a share, in Delaware Chancery Court.

CSX CORP: Plaintiffs to File Class Certification Motion in March----------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs in a consolidated class-action lawsuit against CSX Corp. and three other major U.S. railroads are scheduled to file their Motion for Class Certification in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in March 2010, according to the company's Feb. 19, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 25, 2009.

Since 2007, 31 putative class action suits have been filed in various federal district courts against CSXT and three other U.S.-based Class I railroads. The lawsuits contain substantially similar allegations to the effect that the defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to contract and unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal conspiracy in violation of antitrust laws.

The suits seek unquantified treble damages (three times the amount of actual damages) allegedly sustained by purported class members, attorneys' fees and other relief. All but three of the lawsuits purport to be filed on behalf of a class of shippers that allegedly purchased rail freight transportation services from the defendants through the use of contracts or through other means exempt from rate regulation during defined periods commencing as early as June 2003 and that were assessed fuel surcharges. Three of the lawsuits purport to be on behalf of indirect purchasers of rail services.

The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the direct purchasers' claims; however, the court dismissed all of the indirect purchasers' causes of action seeking money damages, but did not dismiss their request for injunctive relief. The indirect purchasers have appealed that decision, and oral arguments were heard and the Company is awaiting a decision.

The class action suits have been consolidated in federal court in the District of Columbia. The court denied the railroads' request to first proceed with discovery relating to the appropriateness of class certification, and then permit merits discovery only if a class is certified.

The court, however, agreed with the railroads that class certification should be decided as early as possible, rejecting plaintiffs' proposal that certification be determined after the close of discovery and close to trial.

The case is now in the discovery phase.

Plaintiffs are scheduled to file their Motion for Class Certification in March 2010. Defendants' opposition is due in June.

The hearing on class certification is scheduled for September.

All fact discovery must be completed by mid-November 2010.

CSX Corporation, based in Jacksonville, Fla., is a leading transportation company providing rail, intermodal and rail-to-truck transload services. The company's transportation network spans approximately 21,000 miles with service to 23 easternstates and the District of Columbia, and connects to more than 70 ocean, river and lake ports.

On Dec. 13, 2005, the class-action lawsuit was commenced against AMR in Washington State Court, Spokane County.

The complaint alleges that AMR billed patients and third party payors for transports it conducted between 1998 and 2005 athigher rates than contractually permitted.

The court has certified a class in this case, but the size and membership of the class has not been determined.

No further updates were reported in the company's Feb. 19, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year Dec. 31, 2009.

Emergency Medical Services Corp. -- http://www.emsc.net/-- is a provider of emergency medical services in the U.S. The company operates its business and markets its services under the AMR and EmCare brands, which represent American Medical Response, Inc. and EmCare Holdings Inc., respectively. AMR is a provider of ambulance services in the U.S. EmCare is a provider of outsourced emergency department staffing and related management services in the U.S. The company offers a range of emergency medical services through its two business segments: AMR and EmCare.

On April 16, 2008, Lori Bartoni commenced a suit in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Alameda, which has since been removed to the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California.

On July 8, 2008, Vaughn Banta filed suit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

On Jan. 22, 2009, Laura Karapetian filed suit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

As of Feb. 19, 2010, the courts have not certified classes in any of these cases.

All three suits allege violations of California state wage and hour compensation laws.

They are seeking to certify the classes and seeking lost wages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other sanctions permitted under California law for violations of wage and hour laws.

No further updates were reported in the company's Feb. 19, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year Dec. 31, 2009.

Emergency Medical Services Corp. -- http://www.emsc.net/-- is a provider of emergency medical services in the U.S. The company operates its business and markets its services under the AMR and EmCare brands, which represent American Medical Response, Inc. and EmCare Holdings Inc., respectively. AMR is a provider of ambulance services in the U.S. EmCare is a provider of outsourced emergency department staffing and related management services in the U.S. The company offers a range of emergency medical services through its two business segments: AMR and EmCare.

GENERAL ELECTRIC: Motion to Dismiss Suit in Connecticut Pending---------------------------------------------------------------General Electric Company's motion to dismiss a consolidated complaint filed by shareholders in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut remains pending, according to the company's Feb. 19, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In July and September 2008, shareholders filed two purported class actions under the federal securities laws in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut naming the company as defendant, as well as the company's chief executive officer and chief financial officer.

These two actions have been consolidated, and in January 2009, a consolidated complaint was filed alleging that the company and its chief executive officer made false and misleading statements that artificially inflated the company's stock price between March 12, 2008 and April 10, 2008, when the company announced that its results for the first quarter of 2008 would not meet the previous guidance and the company also lowered its full year guidance for 2008.

The case seeks unspecified damages.

The company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint was filed in March 2009 and is currently under consideration by the court.

General Electric Company -- http://www.ge.com/-- is a diversified technology, media and financial services company. The company's products and services include aircraft engines, power generation, water processing, security technology, medical imaging, business and consumer financing, media content and industrial products. The company serves customers in more than 100 countries. The company operates through five segments: Energy Infrastructure, Technology Infrastructure, NBC Universal (NBCU), Capital Finance and Consumer & Industrial. In March 2009, Teleflex Incorporated completed the sale of its 51% share of Airfoil Technologies International - Singapore Pte. Ltd., to GE. In September 2009, the company sold its 81% interest in Homeland Protection business to Safran SA. In September 2009, the company acquired ScanWind. In September 2009, Moog Inc. completed the acquisition of the company's GE Aviation Systems' flight control actuation business. In November 2009, GE Aviation acquired Naverus, Inc.

GENERAL ELECTRIC: Wants Shareholders' Suit in New York Dismissed----------------------------------------------------------------General Electric Company has filed a motion to dismiss a purported class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the company's Feb. 19, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In October 2008, shareholders filed a purported class action under the federal securities laws in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York naming the company as defendant, as well as its chief executive officer and chief financial officer.

The complaint alleges that during a conference call with analysts on Sept. 25, 2008, defendants made false and misleading statements concerning:

(i) the state of GE's funding, cash flows, and liquidity and

(ii) the question of issuing additional equity, which caused economic loss to those shareholders who purchased GE stock between Sept. 25, 2008 and Oct. 2, 2008, when the company announced the pricing of a common stock offering.

The case seeks unspecified damages.

The company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was filed in January 2010 and is currently under consideration by the court.

General Electric Company -- http://www.ge.com/-- is a diversified technology, media and financial services company. The company's products and services include aircraft engines, power generation, water processing, security technology, medical imaging, business and consumer financing, media content and industrial products. The company serves customers in more than 100 countries. The company operates through five segments: Energy Infrastructure, Technology Infrastructure, NBC Universal (NBCU), Capital Finance and Consumer & Industrial. In March 2009, Teleflex Incorporated completed the sale of its 51% share of Airfoil Technologies International - Singapore Pte. Ltd., to GE. In September 2009, the company sold its 81% interest in Homeland Protection business to Safran SA. In September 2009, the company acquired ScanWind. In September 2009, Moog Inc. completed the acquisition of the company's GE Aviation Systems' flight control actuation business. In November 2009, GE Aviation acquired Naverus, Inc.

GENERAL ELECTRIC: Move to Dismiss Suit Over Dividends Pending-------------------------------------------------------------General Electric Company's motion to dismiss a consolidated suit regarding the GE dividend and projected losses and earnings for GE Capital in 2009, remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the company's Feb. 19, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In March and April 2009, shareholders filed purported class actions under the federal securities laws in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York naming as defendants GE, a number of GE officers (including its chief executive officer and chief financial officer) and its directors.

The complaints, which have now been consolidated, seek unspecified damages based on allegations related to statements regarding the GE dividend and projected losses and earnings for GE Capital in 2009.

The company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint was filed in November 2009 and is currently under consideration by the court. A shareholder derivative action has been filed in federal court in Connecticut in May 2009 making essentially the same allegations as the New York actions. The company has moved to consolidate the Connecticut derivative action with the recently consolidated New York actions.

General Electric Company -- http://www.ge.com/-- is a diversified technology, media and financial services company. The company's products and services include aircraft engines, power generation, water processing, security technology, medical imaging, business and consumer financing, media content and industrial products. The company serves customers in more than 100 countries. The company operates through five segments: Energy Infrastructure, Technology Infrastructure, NBC Universal (NBCU), Capital Finance and Consumer & Industrial. In March 2009, Teleflex Incorporated completed the sale of its 51% share of Airfoil Technologies International - Singapore Pte. Ltd., to GE. In September 2009, the company sold its 81% interest in Homeland Protection business to Safran SA. In September 2009, the company acquired ScanWind. In September 2009, Moog Inc. completed the acquisition of the company's GE Aviation Systems' flight control actuation business. In November 2009, GE Aviation acquired Naverus, Inc.

NETLIST INC: Agrees to Settle "Belodoff" Suit for $2.6 Million--------------------------------------------------------------The parties in the consolidated securities fraud class action lawsuit captioned Belodoff v. Netlist, Inc., Case No. SACV07-677, have executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement in order to resolve the matter, according to the company's Feb. 19, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Jan. 2, 2010.

Beginning in May 2007, the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and the company's underwriters were named as defendants in four purported class action shareholder complaints, two of which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and two of which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

These purported class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the company's Nov. 30, 2006 initial public offering.

The lawsuits were consolidated into a single action-Belodoff v. Netlist, Inc., Lead Case No. SACV07-677 DOC (MLGx)-which is currently pending in the Central District of California.

Lead Plaintiff filed the Consolidated Complaint in November 2007.

Defendants filed their motions to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint in January 2008. The motions to dismiss were taken under submission in April 2008 and on May 30, 2008, the court granted the defendants' motions.

However, plaintiffs were granted the right to amend their complaint and subsequently filed their First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint in July 2008. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint in January 2009, and on April 17, 2009, the court granted defendants' motions to dismiss.

However, plaintiffs were again granted the right to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs' filed their Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint in May 2009.

Generally, the Second Amended Complaint, like the preceding complaints, alleged that the Registration Statement filed by the company in connection with the IPO contained untrue statements of material fact or omissions of material fact in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of Securities Act of 1933. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in June 2009.

The motions to dismiss were taken under submission in August 2009 and on Sept. 1, 2009, the Court granted the defendants' motions. However, plaintiffs again were granted the right to amend their complaint.

In October 2009, following a voluntary mediation of the matter, which took place in December 2008, and subsequent good-faith settlement negotiations, the parties reached a tentative agreement in principle to settle the class action.

In February 2010, the parties executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement documenting the essential terms of the proposed settlement, informed the court of their proposed settlement, and currently are drafting a joint motion to submit to the court for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement.

Under the settlement agreement to be presented to the court for approval, plaintiffs and the class will dismiss all claims, with prejudice, in exchange for a cash payment of $2.6 million. The company's directors' and officers' liability insurers will pay the settlement amount in accordance with the company's insurance policies.

The court, upon the parties' stipulation, has stayed all proceedings in the action, except as necessary to consummate the proposed settlement.

OMNICOM GROUP: Plaintiffs' Appeal Pending in Second Circuit-----------------------------------------------------------The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of the consolidated suit styled In re Omnicom Group Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 02-CV-4483 (RCC), remains pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, according to the company's Feb. 19, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Beginning on June 13, 2002, several putative class actions were filed against the company and certain senior executives in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The actions have since been consolidated under the caption In re Omnicom Group Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 02-CV-4483 (RCC), on behalf of a proposed class of purchasers of the company's common stock between Feb. 20, 2001 and June 11, 2002.

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the company's public filings and other public statements during that period contained false and misleading statements or omitted to state material information relating to:

(1) the company's calculation of the organic growth component of period-to-period revenue growth,

(2) the company's valuation of and accounting for certain internet investments made by the company's Communicade Group, which the company contributed to Seneca Investments LLC in 2001, and

(3) the existence and amount of certain contingent future obligations in respect of acquisitions.

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and on March 28, 2005, the court dismissed portions (1) and (3) of the complaint. The court's decision denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the remainder of the complaint did not address the ultimate merits of the case, but only the sufficiency of the pleading. Defendants have answered the complaint. Discovery concluded in the second quarter of 2007.

On April 30, 2007, the court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification, certifying the class proposed by plaintiffs.

In the third quarter of 2007 defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's remaining claim.

On Jan. 28, 2008, the court granted defendants' motion in its entirety, dismissing all claims and directing the court to close the case. On Feb. 4, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a notice of intent to appeal that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The appeal has been fully briefed and oral argument before the Court of Appeals occurred on May 5, 2009.

Omnicom Group Inc. -- http://www.omnicomgroup.com/-- is a holding company, providing professional services to the clients through multiple agencies operating globally. It is engaged in providing advertising, marketing and corporate communication services. The company's agencies provide a range of services, which it groups into four disciplines: traditional media advertising, customer relationship management (CRM), public relations and specialty communications. The wholly owned subsidiaries of the company include Omnicom capital Inc. (OCI) and Omnicom Finance Inc. (OFI). In July 2009, LB2 Group Ltd. announced that it has acquired ownership of Ketchum Directory Advertising (KDA) from Omnicom.

QUEST SOFTWARE: Settlement Final Hearing Set for March 15---------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has scheduled a final hearing on the approval of a settlement agreement in a purported shareholder class action against Quest Software, Inc., for March 15, 2010, according to the company's Feb. 19, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In October 2006, a purported shareholder class action was filed against Quest and certain of its current or former officers and directors.

The plaintiff alleges that:

(i) the company improperly backdated stock options, resulting in false or misleading disclosures concerning, among other things, Quest's financial condition and

(ii) the individual defendants sold Quest stock while in possession of material nonpublic information resulting in damages to the putative plaintiff class, in violation of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On Sept. 8, 2009, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion to certify the class.

Pursuant to a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement entered into on Nov. 6, 2009, the company, the class representative and certain current and former officers and directors of the company, agreed to settle the Options Class Action for a payment of $29.4 million.

The settlement agreement is subject to approval by the U.S. District Court.

On Dec. 7, 2009, the U.S. District Court preliminarily approved the settlement. Shortly thereafter, the company funded its share, $19.0 million, of the $29.4 million settlement, with the remainder being funded directly by the Company's liability insurance carriers.

No class members opted out of or objected to the settlement prior to the Feb. 15, 2010 deadline for doing so.

A final hearing before the U.S. District Court is scheduled for March 15, 2010 to approve the settlement.

If the settlement is approved by the U.S. District Court following the final hearing, the court will enter a judgment dismissing the Option Class Action with prejudice as to all defendants, including the company. Plaintiffs included in the class will have thirty days to appeal the judgment, after which the judgment will become final. If the settlement is not approved for any reason, the case will resume.

Quest Software, Inc. -- http://www.quest.com/-- designs, develops, markets, distributes and supports enterprise systemsmanagement software products. The company's primary portfolio of software products includes software solutions grouped into four categories: Application Management, Database Management, Windows Management and Virtualization Management. Quest markets and sells its products and services worldwide primarily through its direct sales organization, its telesales organization and via indirect sales channels with a group of value added resellers (VAR's) and distributors. In September 2008, the company acquired NetPro Computing, Inc. In January 2008, it acquired PassGo Technologies Limited (PassGo), a United Kingdom-based company engaged in access and identity management solutions.

REDDY ICE: Motion to Dismiss Antitrust Suit Remains Pending-----------------------------------------------------------Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated amended complaint remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, according to the company's Feb. 19, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Following the announcement that the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice had instituted an investigation of thepackaged ice industry, a number of lawsuits, including putative class action lawsuits, were filed in various federal courts in multiple jurisdictions alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws and related claims and seeking damages andinjunctive relief.

Pursuant to an Order from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the civil actions pending in federal courts have been transferred and consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District ofMichigan.

On June 1, 2009, the Court appointed interim lead and liaison counsel for the putative direct and indirect purchaser classes.

On July 17, 2009 the Court entered a case management order requiring the lead plaintiffs for each class to file a consolidated amended complaint within 60 days of the order, and providing 45 days for the defendants to respond to the direct purchaser consolidated amended complaint and 60 days for the defendants to respond to the indirect purchaser consolidated amended complaint.

On Sept. 15, 2009, the lead plaintiffs for each of the putative direct and indirect purchaser classes filed consolidated amended complaints.

The company has have filed motions to dismiss both of those complaints. The motions to dismiss have been fully briefed and await determination by the judge.

Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.reddyice.com/-- manufactures and distributes packaged ice in the United States. The company serves variety of customers in 31 states and the District of Columbia under the Reddy Ice brand name. Itsprincipal product is ice packaged in seven to 50 pound bags, which it sells to a diversified customer base, includingsupermarkets, mass merchants and convenience stores.

REDDY ICE: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit in Mich. Pending---------------------------------------------------------------Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated amended complaint asserting claims under the federal securities laws remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, according to the company's Feb. 19, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Beginning on Aug. 8, 2008, purported class action complaints have been filed asserting claims under the federal securities laws against the company and certain of its current or former senior officers.

The complaints, which are substantially similar, allege that the defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose the existence of, and its alleged participation in, an alleged antitrust conspiracy in the packaged ice industry. The complaints purport to assert claims on behalf of various alleged classes of purchasers of the company's common stock.

Two motions for consolidation of the three actions and for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel werefiled on Oct. 7, 2008. Thereafter, one of the two proposed lead plaintiffs withdrew his motion.

On July 17, 2009, the Court consolidated the actions and appointed a lead plaintiff and interim lead plaintiff's counsel.

The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on Nov. 2, 2009. The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on Dec. 17, 2009.

Plaintiffs filed a response to that motion to dismiss on Jan. 18, 2010, and the company filed a reply in support of the motion on Feb. 17, 2010.

Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.reddyice.com/-- manufactures and distributes packaged ice in the United States. The company serves variety of customers in 31 states and the District of Columbia under the Reddy Ice brand name. Itsprincipal product is ice packaged in seven to 50 pound bags, which it sells to a diversified customer base, includingsupermarkets, mass merchants and convenience stores.

The Copyright Act generally requires copyright holders to register their works before suing for infringement.

In the underlying class action, freelance authors accused print publishers and publishers of electronic databases of reproducing their work without permission. The consolidated class included authors who had never registered copyrights to their articles.

After three years of negotiations, the authors and publishers agreed to settle the dispute "to achieve a global peace in the publishing industry," the ruling states.

They asked the district court to certify a class for settlement and approve their agreement. The district court complied, overruling the objections of 10 freelance authors.

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit raised the issue of whether the federal court had jurisdiction to approve the settlement, because the deal included unregistered works.

The circuit overturned the lower court's rulings, and the Supreme Court again reversed.

The registration requirement of the Copyright Act is not jurisdictional, Justice Clarence Thomas ruled, rejecting arguments advanced by amicus curiae appointed to defend the 2nd Circuit's position.

"In concluding that the district court had jurisdiction to approve the settlement, we express no opinion on the settlement's merits," Judge Thomas wrote.

"We also decline to address whether (the) registration requirement is a mandatory precondition to suit that . . . district courts may or should enforce sua sponte by dismissing copyright infringement claims involving unregistered works."

In a concurring opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg explained how she reconciled the high court's rulings in Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp. and Bowles v. Russell, which addressed statutory requirements that were potentially jurisdictional.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor did not participate in the unanimous decision.

SEARS ROEBUCK: Suit Complains About Defective Washing Machines--------------------------------------------------------------Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that Sears Roebuck misleads consumers about the power of its Kenmore Elite Oasis automatic washing machines, according to a class action in Madison County Court. Named plaintiff Therese Dalla Riva says the machine has a defective electronic control board, which controls laundry cycles, water levels and spin speed.

Sears advertised the machine as its "top of the line." It claims that it uses 47 percent less water and 53 percent less energy, can do large loads of laundry in a single, uninterrupted cycle, and cleans clothes better than other washers, according to the complaint.

But Ms. Dalla Riva says the machine fails to deliver due to a defective electronic control board. The problems show up in error codes, and the machine stops working and has to be restarted, if it can be restarted, or the machine spins out of control, which could damage it, Ms. Dalla Riva says.

Ms. Dalla Riva says Sears knew about the defects and reported internally that the machines were service technicians' top concern.

Kelly Holleran at The Madison County Record reports that at the height of its problems, the $1,000 washing machine would take more than eight hours to wash one load of laundry.

In 2007, Mr. Harris continues, Sears issued a service flash stating that the control boards needed to be replaced, but it applied only to floor models that had not already been sold. Ms. Dalla Riva claims Sears did nothing to fix the problems of customers who already had bought the machines.

The class consists of anybody in Illinois who bought the Kenmore Elite Oasis washing machines. It seeks an injunction, repairs, and damages for breach of warranty, fraudulent concealment and consumer law violations.

TIME WARNER: Plaintiffs Appealing Dismissal of 3rd Amended Suit---------------------------------------------------------------The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of a Third Amended Complaint against Time Warner Inc. remains pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, according to the company's Feb. 19, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Sept. 20, 2007, Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc., et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the company.

The complaint, which also named as defendants several other programming content providers (programmer defendants) as well as cable and satellite providers (distributor defendants), alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Among other things, the complaint alleged coordination between and among the programmer defendants to sell and/or license programming on a "bundled" basis to the distributor defendants, who in turn purportedly offer that programming to subscribers in packaged tiers, rather than on a per channel (a la carte) basis.

Plaintiffs, who seek to represent a purported nationwide class of cable and satellite subscribers, demand, among other things, unspecified treble monetary damages and an injunction to compel the offering of channels to subscribers on an "a la carte" basis.

On Dec. 3, 2007, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in this action that, among other things, dropped the Section 2 claims and all allegations of horizontal coordination. The defendants, including the company, filed motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint and these motions were granted, with leave to amend.

On March 20, 2008, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint that modified certain aspects of the First Amended Complaint. On April 22, 2008, the defendants, including the company, filed motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, which motions were denied.

On July 14, 2008, the defendants filed motions requesting the court to certify its order for interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which motions were denied.

On Nov. 14, 2008, the company was dismissed as a programmer defendant, and Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. was substituted in its place.

On May 1, 2009, by stipulation of the parties, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint and a related motion to adjudicate an element of plaintiffs' claim.

On June 12, 2009, all defendants opposed that motion and moved to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint.

On the same date, the distributor defendants also filed a motion to dismiss for lack of standing.

In an order dated Oct. 15, 2009, the court denied plaintiffs' motion and granted defendants' motion, dismissing the Third Amended Complaint with prejudice.

On Oct. 30, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Time Warner Inc. -- http://www.timewarner.com/-- is a media and entertainment company. The company has three reporting segments: Networks, consisting principally of cable television networks that provide programming; Filmed Entertainment, consisting principally of feature film, television and home video production and distribution, and Publishing, consisting principally of magazine publishing. The company's Networks business consists principally of domestic and international networks and premium pay television programming services. Premium pay television programming consists of the multi channel HBO (Home Box Office) and Cinemax pay television programming services. On March 12, 2009, the company completed separation of Time Warner Cable Inc. (TWC) and on Dec. 9, 2009, it completed separation of AOL Inc. (AOL).

TOYOTA MOTOR: Lieff Cabraser Files Another Acceleration Suit------------------------------------------------------------Robert J. Nelson, Esq., of the national plaintiffs' law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, announced that Andrew and Tetyana Flury of Pasadena, Maryland, filed a personal injury lawsuit last week seeking general and punitive damages against Toyota Motor Corporation for the severe injuries they suffered.

On April 29, 2008, in Baltimore, Maryland, the couple's 2005 Toyota Echo suddenly accelerated and collided with an SUV.

"My wife and I were driving to a restaurant in Baltimore to celebrate our wedding anniversary. As we approached a stop sign, I tried to stop but our 2005 Toyota Echo continued to accelerate," stated Mr. Flury. "I applied the brakes but the vehicle did not respond. We accelerated into the intersection where we were impacted by an SUV."

The life-threatening collision knocked both unconscious. Mr. Flury went into an immediate coma for over a month and suffered a traumatic brain injury. "I have been unable to return to my job as a sales manager for a technical job placement agency," Mr. Flury added. "I am now partially paralyzed on the right side of my body and have serious cognitive impairments that will affect me for the rest of my life."

"The complaint charges that Toyota for years was aware that its vehicles were susceptible to sudden unintended acceleration, leading to fatal accidents," stated plaintiffs' counsel Robert J. Nelson. "Yet, Toyota never made any significant changes to improve the acceleration and electrical systems of its vehicles, in spite of the availability of several safe and inexpensive modifications."

Allegations Against Toyota

The complaint charges that beginning in the late 1990s, Toyota manufactured, distributed and sold vehicles with an electronic throttle control system ("ETC"). Unlike that of traditional throttle control systems, where a physical linkage connects the accelerator pedal to the engine throttle, in the ETC system, the engine throttle is controlled by electronic signals sent from the gas pedal to the engine throttle. A sensor at the accelerator detects how far the gas pedal is depressed and transmits that information to a computer module which controls the engine throttle.

When Toyota first introduced the ETC, it continued to include a mechanical linkage between the accelerator and the engine throttle control. Beginning with the 2002 model year, Toyota began manufacturing and selling vehicles without such a mechanical linkage. Further, Toyota's ETC system fails to include a failsafe measure, known as brake-to-idle override, that is in use by other vehicle manufacturers. The brake-to-idle override instructs the ETC system to automatically reduce the engine to idle whenever the brakes are applied without success.

"The complaint charges that the lack of these two safety systems -- the mechanical linkage between the accelerator and the engine throttle control, and the brake-to-idle override failsafe -- in millions of Toyota vehicles, including the 2005 Toyota Echo driven by Andrew Flury, played a direct role in the severe injuries he suffered," commented Mr. Nelson.

The complaint was filed in federal court in Los Angeles as two of the primary defendants, Toyota Motor North America, Inc. and Toyota Motor Sales, Inc., are both California corporations with their headquarters located in Los Angeles. The complaint seeks general damages as well as punitive damages against Toyota for its failure to recall its vehicles due to a known, significant safety defect and refusal to take any steps to prevent sudden unintended acceleration accidents in order to increase its profits.

Description of Flury Toyota Unintended, Acceleration Accident

On the night of April 29, 2008, Andrew Flury and his wife Tetyana Flury were belted occupants in their 2005 Toyota Echo. Mr. Flury was driving and Mrs. Flury was in the front passenger seat.

The couple was driving to a restaurant in Baltimore to celebrate their wedding anniversary. They were driving at a safe rate of speed, proceeding westbound on Water Street in Baltimore. As they approached a stop sign at the intersection of Gay Street, Mr. Flury tried to stop the vehicle, but it suddenly accelerated. He applied the brakes but the vehicle did not respond.

The Toyota Echo accelerated into the intersection where it was impacted by Ford Explorer SUV that was traveling northbound on Gay Street. There was a violent impact to the driver's side of the Toyota Echo. The Flurys both suffered head injuries and were knocked unconscious.

Mr. Flury went into an immediate coma for over a month and suffered a traumatic brain injury. He is now partially paralyzed on the right side of his body and has serious cognitive impairments that will affect him for the rest of his life. Since the accident, he has been unable to return to work due to his severe injuries and limitations.

or call the Firm toll free at 1-800-541-7358 and ask to speak to attorney Todd Walburg. There is no charge or obligation for the Firm's review of your case.

About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP -- http://www.lieffcabraser.com/-- is a sixty-plus attorney law firm that has represented plaintiffs nationwide since 1972. We have offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville. Lieff Cabraser has a comprehensive and diverse practice, which includes representing persons injured and families of loved ones who died in auto accidents. Since 2003, The National Law Journal has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the top plaintiffs' law firms in the nation.

VERVE GLOBAL: Ill. Suit Complains About Flawed Nursing Program--------------------------------------------------------------Elizabeth Banicki at Courthouse News Service reports that a Chicago vocational school's "deeply flawed" nursing program is so shoddy it neglects basic elements of nursing and prevents graduates from getting jobs, a class action claims in Cook County Court. The seven named plaintiffs sued Verve Global dba the PC Computer Training Institute.

The for-profit school, which has campuses in Chicago and Oak Park, also does business as PCCTI and PCCTI IT and Healthcare.

The students say the curriculum for the licensed practical nursing program "completely failed to include required nursing areas, including Pharmacology, Pediatrics, Cardiology, Psychology, Maternity and Nutrition."

They add that they "were taught incorrect nursing procedures, and taught incorrect theory."

They say the school "failed to grade students' examinations utilizing a valid and consistent methodology, resulting in grades issued by the school without competent basis."

As a result, they say, a large number of nursing students were given failing grades, causing them to be "unfairly prevented from taking the Illinois license test for becoming an LPN."

The school also changed its minimum passing grade from a C to a B, the complaint states.

Even students who pass the school's test cannot get jobs, the class claims, because "employer pre-employment examinations reveal that the PCCTI LPN curriculum is deeply flawed and deficient of required nursing knowledge."

Students say they were misled to believe that credits were transferable to RN programs at other schools; that teachers were available for out-of-class tutoring; and say they were charged for exams that were supposed to be free.

They seek and injunction and class damages for violations of the Private Business and Vocational Schools Act, consumer fraud, deceptive business practices, breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.